Michael Moore Urges 2nd Amendment Repeal: Get Dogs, Not Guns
“I know that there are Democratic Party leaders that do not want me saying this. … I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country, and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this: Repeal the Second Amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment,” Moore urged.
“You don’t need a gun,” Moore added. “If you’re afraid of somebody breaking in, get a dog.”
If a dog is going to be a deterrent to a violent predator then they have to be large and capable of inflicting serious, life threatening, damage. So, essentially you have the same level of damage as a firearm but instead of under your complete control it is under the control of an animal brain over which you have moderate control.
The way I see this is that if you believe a dog is better than a firearm it means you believe some dog brain has better judgement and is less likely to make a mistake in defending you and yours than you are. Plus there is the lack of availability when you go to work, the store, or the movies, etc.. That is also a “cost” of making that tradeoff.
For this increased reliability and decreased availability you are willing to a pay a lot more. This says to me that the increased reliability must be an order of magnitude or so better than what you have with a firearm 100% under your control.
This makes perfect sense in the case of Moore. But he should not be speaking for others who are not so mentally handicapped that, by his own indirect admission, he believes a dog is ten times smarter than he is.
Good point Joe.
So we should get a dog so you can watch the police, ATF, or general criminals shoot your pet first?
Before they drag you before the LGBTQ+ commission for a mean twit?
Or some bozo at the ATF lost the paperwork you submitted when you surrendered your firearms. And they think you still have them?
Gun control is all about who gets to shoot whom. Everything else on the conversation is bullshit.
That’s a thoughtful analysis!
I’d add that Moore publicly incriminates himself by admitting;
“…I understand the history of this country…”
If ignorance were ever a legitimate defense, and I believe that sometimes it can be, then he has just made his own defense vastly more difficult.
Nor in Moor’s case is there any excuse for ignorance at all. This issue is obviously very dear to him, and has been for decades now. Indeed he’s made a profession out of it! And what excuse does one have for failing to endeavor to understand, from every angle and in great depth, an issue so dear to his heart?
But let’s not be simplistic in our understanding, nor project our own mindset and morals onto those of the opposite mindset, lest we make the mistake of thinking them simple-minded and dense! Of course it must be further understood that, from the position of the authoritarian (i.e. anti-American) mindset, truly “understanding the history of this country” means that, indeed, you will see an urgent need to disarm the most honest, most faithful, principled, morally strong and law-abiding among us, for your own safety. For indeed the greatest threat to any criminal is the most faithful faithful keeper of the law! The competing criminal may well be dangerous, even deadly, but he can usually be bargained with. The law keeper on the other hand will have none of it.
And let’s now put the former into its full and proper context, as ever it should be, lest we in our own ignorance or pride allow it to be corrupted;
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James 1:25
“So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:12
As joe is wont to say, enjoy your trials!
Now the “perfect law of liberty” referenced by James is of course God’s law (Exodus 20, KJV), of which the U.S. Declaration is but a partial, somewhat polluted, and very dull and dim, reflection.
But you can’t take your dog to school, or work in many places, or the theater.
And dogs are carnivores, that many new pets would require a huge amount of meat be grown for them, causing more global warming.(you know AGW is BS, but it’s a page from their playbooks, so I’m using it).
And some people are allergic to dogs.
And some people live or work in places that it would be horribly inconvenient to own a dog; like when my brother was working at a mining camp, two weeks on, one week off.
Yeah, Moore is smart, but he’s a fat, manipulative, evil man, who treats his employees badly.
On an unrelated note, it looks like Bill Gates and Ghislaine Maxwell are cousins. Suddenly the adoption of MS-DOS makes more sense.
Once they ban guns and force everyone to get a dog they’ll simply ban dogs.
RE: Dogs vs guns for personal protection.
“Real” dogs come with complications, among them size: a small concealable dog offers minimal protection, and large capacity assault-style dogs have substantial infrastructure requirements that render them inconvenient for daily use in a great many situations.
But how about a robot dog? Most fall into the “toy” category, but Boston Dynamics’ “Spot” – about the size of a medium capacity assault-style biological canine – may have possibilities.
I have no clue as to battery life, or what academic achievement level a prospective owner must attain (think of it as the software equivalent of “advanced self defense firearms training”) to be fully in control, and in complete command of, a Self Defense version of Spot.
And, unlike one’s G19 or 1911, there’s the issue of needing to constantly update the OS and onboard Apps, not to mention the software security issues; what if one’s SD Spot gets hacked by the 14-year-old nerd next door and it starts attacking mail carriers and the pizza delivery guy?
Its so funny that a man that lives in ivory towers, with armed security , can tell real American’s what to do..Tell him alone to take a stroll through some democrat controlled cities, with his skin tone….SEE HOW IT WORKS OUT FOR HIM….What he really needs to do is STFU and push the mounds of food away..
Yes, and dogs that are trained to inflict injury can be unpredictable. Something that they interpret as a threat demanding a response may have been totally innocuous otherwise. Some of those otherwise unexplained dog attacks were just that…a dangerous dog misinterpreting an innocent act as threatening.
Not to mention the probability of being sued if you have a dog that is trained to defend your property, someone trespasses when you aren’t there and the dog attacks them.
Big dogs that bark but don’t bite are no deterrent. When our house was robbed, we had two dogs, one a 120 lb black lab/pit bull mix and an 85 lb mutt. They were both intimidating looking and would bark when someone came to the door but ultimately both were friendly. We like dogs as companions, not as weapons systems. When the guy who was watching our house while we were on vacation got there and discovered the robbery, the dogs had been shut up in the garage. We considered ourselves very lucky that the robbers didn’t hurt them.*
The bottom line is that, like most leftists, Michael Moore is a moron who, if it weren’t for bad ideas, wouldn’t have any ideas at all.
*Because of this, we’re pretty sure that the robbers were people who lived close by and were familiar with the dogs. At the time we had several…um…unsavory…families living nearby. Thankfully most of them have moved on at this point.
That’s an awful lot of responsibility for an animal with a brain the size of an orange.